Death or Exile Sheikh Hasina

It would be too easy today to focus on the problems within the labour government and the plots to unseat the prime minister. This is prime estate for Machiavelli and perhaps number 10 have read "The Prince" (or worse they have not understood it). However I have chosen today to highlight something quite different but very relevent to the thoughts of Machiavelli.

A tribunal in Bangladesh has sentenced Sheikh Hasina, the long-serving and fiercely polarising former Prime Minister, to death in absentia. The charges: crimes against humanity tied to her government’s response to the 2024 student led uprising. Her critics say justice is being done. Her supporters argue it’s revenge dressed as law. Either way, the verdict is a signal, not just a judgment. (in an irtonic twist you may remember Hasina is the Aunt of labour MP Tulip Siddiq who forgot her Aunt had given her a two bedroom flat in Kings Cross).

Some background about the political situation in Bangladesh is important here.  Bangladesh is in a fragile transition. After a student led uprising toppled Hasina’s 15 year rule in 2024, an interim government under Nobel laureate Muhammad Yunus took over. But this wasn’t a smooth reset. it’s messy, and the country is deeply polarised. Human rights problems persist. The crackdown during last year’s protests was brutal, the UN estimates as many as 1,400 people were killed. Mob violence is rising, journalists are under pressure, and minorities face increasing harassment. There’s even a growing worry that the state is using the old tools of repression: arbitrary detentions, mass arrests, and politically motivated prosecutions.

Politically, things are shifting fast. The interim government has banned the Awami League (Hasina’s party) from political activity under anti-terror legislation. Meanwhile, a new constitution-style document called the “July Charter” is being pushed, promising reforms: term limits for the prime minister, stronger judiciary, more rights. But not everyone trusts it; some say the reforms are too symbolic, others worry about how it will be enforced.

To make matters more complicated, Islamist groups are re-emerging. While some hoped the post Hasina era would bring a more open, secular politics, there’s a growing fear that religious hard-liners may fill the vacuum.

Machiavelli would be very interested in the events in Bangladesh and the tension between reform, justice and retribution. He wouldn’t waste time debating whether a death sentence for Hasina is fair. He would ask what the verdict does. This is a play of power, not just retribution. Sentencing her while she’s in exile is a way of rewriting the narrative: not only was she removed, now she is being condemned. That message reaches beyond the court. It tells political rivals, adherents, and the wider public who controls the story now.

In Machiavelli’s world, exile doesn’t mean disappearance; A deposed leader can become a myth, a rallying point, or a warning. By condemning her so publicly, the regime is attempting to recast her legacy before her supporters can do it for her. But it cuts both ways: she risks being written off, yes, but she may also be elevated as a martyr.

Then there’s the lesson of fear. A death sentence is not neutral, it is a message: transgressing the new order has real consequences. But Machiavelli knows fear is only effective when paired with legitimacy. This isn’t just raw terror, it is a spectacle of authority, the state demonstrating that it can punish, but frame it as justice, not vengeance. He would also lean into the role of fortune (chance). Hasina’s fall was not inevitable. The uprising, the trial, her exile, these are the unpredictable turns that shake states. What matters now is how she or her allies respond. Exile can be a dead end or a platform. The wise actor watches, waits, and strikes when opportunity opens.

From a Machiavellian standpoint, the question of “justification” isn’t about law or morality, it’s about power, security, and political strategy. He would look at the death sentence for Sheikh Hasina and ask: does this action consolidate the authority of the current regime, deter rivals, and stabilise the state? If the verdict achieves those outcomes, if it removes a dangerous opponent, signals control, and discourages others from challenging power then Machiavelli would likely see it as politically justified, even necessary. Justice or fairness is secondary; what matters is whether it serves the survival and strength of the ruler or ruling system. Finally, on this occasion there is little or no prospect of an actual execution, and therefore a martyr in the making, so the risk of empowering the opposition is minimised.

On the whole, Machiavelli would see the events in Bangladesh as a classic example of the state using the instruments available to it to maintain control, send a message to its opponents and position itself in the political landscape.